On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 10:24:00PM +0200, Willi Dyck wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 12:45:35PM -0400, MaD dUCK wrote:
> > because obviously, if only micro$oft can look at the code, then noone
> > else can find bugs *and* micro$oft has complete control over security.
>
> M$ is always good for a j
Well, they have done it: I have never read so much bullshit in one
document. Some parts are true, however they have misinterpreted it. Most
of what they see as a disadvantage is really an advantage. But do not
blame them, they have not reached that kind of intelligence yet.
Greetz,
Sebastiaan
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 12:45:35PM -0400, MaD dUCK wrote:
> because obviously, if only micro$oft can look at the code, then noone
> else can find bugs *and* micro$oft has complete control over security.
M$ is always good for a joke.
Probaly a new tip for will trillich for his random signature:
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 02:36:07PM -0400, MaD dUCK wrote:
| also sprach D-Man (on Thu, 17 May 2001 02:11:46PM -0400):
| > """
| > Limited Developer Tools
| >
| > There are limited developer tools available for Linux. Those that are
| > available are much more difficult to use than Microsoft Visual
also sprach D-Man (on Thu, 17 May 2001 02:11:46PM -0400):
> """
> Limited Developer Tools
>
> There are limited developer tools available for Linux. Those that are
> available are much more difficult to use than Microsoft Visual Studio.
> Thus, the same application can take much longer to develop
D-Man wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 12:19:38PM -0400, MaD dUCK wrote:
>
> I am a software engineering student. The funniest part of the
> article, for me, is this paragraph :
>
> """
> Limited Developer Tools
>
> There are limited developer tools available for Linux. Those that are
> avai
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 12:19:38PM -0400, MaD dUCK wrote:
I am a software engineering student. The funniest part of the
article, for me, is this paragraph :
"""
Limited Developer Tools
There are limited developer tools available for Linux. Those that are
available are much more difficult to use
also sprach Frank Zimmermann (on Thu, 17 May 2001 05:53:40PM +0100):
> not really the lastest news. Suse already respondet at the 11.05.
> (sorry only fond a german version:
> http://www.suse.de/de/news/hotnews/MS.html ) and the OpenSource
> Community responded recently to this:
> http://perens.co
MaD dUCK wrote:
> "Microsoft Windows has better security than Linux"
>
> it's absolutely hilarious, just about like everything that comes out
> of the redmond circus.
>
> the original is at
> http://www.microsoft.com/europe/industry/downloads/
> retail/Linux%20report.doc
>
> but because that
also sprach Willi Dyck (on Thu, 17 May 2001 06:37:42PM +0200):
> Linux is less secure
>
> "Open source" means that anyone can get a copy of the source code.
> Developers can find security weaknesses very easily with Linux. The same
> is not true with Microsoft Windows.
>
> Damn! How can I protect
Linux is less secure
"Open source" means that anyone can get a copy of the source code.
Developers can find security weaknesses very easily with Linux. The same
is not true with Microsoft Windows.
Damn! How can I protect my Business now? I think I will switch to
windows just to be sure my data is
11 matches
Mail list logo
